Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pecattiphilia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Unsourced. Not suitable to transwiki and target unclear. Anyone can put in a redirect Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pecattiphilia[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG, WP:NOTDICT, There's nothing I got from a duckduckgo search that isn't a plain definition. AtlasDuane (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. AtlasDuane (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. AtlasDuane (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AtlasDuane (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. AtlasDuane (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak transwikify to wikt:pecattiphilia. (I oppose redirecting to List of paraphilias because that is a list of notable paraphilias, which this is not.) Doesn't yet exist on Wiktionary, probably because this borderline neologism is hardly ever used (nothing on Ngrams). Also, AtlasDuane, I wanted to express my delight at finding a fellow DuckDuckGo user! A world without Google is possible! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify or redirect in the closing admin's wise judgement. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to transwikifying, Wiktionary wants to see several sources indicating usage of the word in text (as distinct from mentioning the word) before you can add an entry. If we don't have sources making use of it in-text, they won't want it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.